Delhi Development Authority vs Ambitious Enterprises Anr.
1994 Latest Caselaw 490 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

(1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27/05/1994.

(2) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-Delhi Development Authority, the appellant before us, issued an advertisement on February 8,1976 with a view to providing an opportunity to industrialists to shift their industries functioning in the non-conforming areas or the areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes to conforming areas. The advertisement declared that it was the last opportunity for the industrialists to apply for land in the conforming areas which had been developed by the Delhi Developmnent Authority in different localities of Delhi according to the provisions of the Master Plan. The applicants were advised to apply in the prescribed form.Pursuant to the advertisement, about 15,000 applicants applied for the plots. As the number of applications were large, it was decided by the appellant that an applicant should deposit 30% of the " premium amount" of the land as a condition precedent for the Authority to consider his application. By this process the appellant was able to weed out sizable number of applicants. Out of 15,000applicants only 416 applicants deposited the requisite amount. Some applicants after depositing the amount withdrew the same. Ultimately 299 applicants were left in the field, out of which 184 applicants were allotted plots as they were found to be possessed of valid municipal licenses from the M.C.D. on the date of the application and were also found to have industries in non-conforming areas. in respect of the remaining 115 applicants, the matter was referred to a Committee for ascertaining their eligibility for allotment of the industrial plots. The committee went into the matter and found that out of these 115 applicants 60 were eligible forallotment of alternative plots. Case of 55 applicants was thus rejected on theground, inter-alia,that they did not have the municipal licenses on the date of their making the application for allotment of plots.

(3) The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up in the writ petitions came to the conclusion that the industrial plots were proposed to be allotted as per the scheme announced in the year 1976 and the purpose of the scheme was to provide alternative plots to the industrialists who could not continue to function in non-conforming areas. According to him the scheme did not impose any condition on the applicants requiring them to be possessed of municipal licenses for their undertakings on the date of the making the applications to the appellant.

(4) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that para 8 of the application form, prescribed for making an application for allotment of land,required the applicant to be possessed of a municipal license. He further submitted that Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short 'the Rules' ) also required the applicants to be possessed of municipal license.

(5) We have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant but we find that there is no such requirement either in the prescribed form nor in the rule 6(v) of the Rules. Para 8 of the prescribed form reads as follows:- "Number and date of municipal license held, if any, and date up to which it is valid."

The words "if any" are, in our view, significant. According to the above para an applicant was required to give details of the municipal license, if he was possessedof the same. As is apparent it does not lay down that the appellant should hold a municipal license for the industrial unit on the date of making the application for allotment of a plot in a conforming area. It also does not say that an applicant not holding the municipal license need not apply. There was no mandatory requirement to produce a municipal license by the applicant either at the time of making the application or before his application was to be considered or granted. It appears to us that the scheme was applicable to an applicant who was having an industry in a non-conforming area irrespective of the fact whether or not he was having a municipal license in respect of his industry as otherwise there was no point in making him apply for the plot when none was to be allotted to him. Even assuming that possession of a municipal license was necessary,it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that now all the writ petitioners whose writ petitions have been allowed by the learned Single Judge had applied for the industrial licenses from the municipality and the same were granted to them with retrospective effect covering the dates when applications were made by them for allotment of plots. Therefore in either view, this contention based on possession of municipal license is devoid of any merit.

(6) Now coming to the Rule 6(v) of the Rules, we are of the opinion that it does not postulate any condition that Nazul land is to be allotted at pre-determined rates only to persons having municipal licenses in respect of their industrial undertakings. Rule 6(v) in so for it is relevant for the purposes of this appeal, is reproduced here and reads as under:- "SUBJECT to the other provisions of these rules the Authority shall allot Nazul land at the predetermined rates in the following cases namely......... to industrialists or owners and occupiers of ware houses who are required to shift their industries and ware houses from non-conforming areas to conforming area under the Master Plan, or whose land is acquired or is proposed to be acquired under the Act........."

According to the above Rule, land. could be allotted to industrialists or owners of units and occupiers of warehouses who are required to shift from non-conforming areas to conforming areas under the Master Plan or whose land is acquired or is proposed to be acquired. It seems to us that the Rule requires industries operating in non-conforming areas to be shifted to conforming areas in accordance with the Master Plan. Under Master Plan land use of a particular area is specified. The land cannot be used for a purpose other than the one sanctioned by the Master Plan.Therefore, any industry operating in a non-conforming area would be required to be shifted to a conforming area. In any event, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners whose writ petitions have been accepted by the learned Single Judge were granted municipal licenses from retrospective dates, covering the dates on which applications were made for allotment of land.

(7) In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in regard to the writ petitions which have been allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in liming.